Those who have always felt there was something a little "off" about Hillary's rise to her party's Presidential nomination are now having all of their suspicions (and more) confirmed in a new book by the soon-to-be-late Donna Brazile, who headed the DNC in the final days leading up to the election.
In her book, "Hacks," the title of which apparently isn't meant to describe sleazy political operatives such as herself, Brazile says that Bernie Sanders never stood a chance because early in the primary campaign Hillary essentially bought the entire DNC and thereafter made all decisions to assure her eventual candidacy. She did this by providing money to the impoverished DNC (bankrupted by Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Barack Obama, according to Brazile) from her own deep campaign coffers. And all the DNC had to do in return was look the other way while populist favorite Bernie Sanders was screwed into the ground by the Clinton machine.
Of course, we'd be more impressed with Donna Brazile's sudden attack of conscience if she hadn't actively helped with the cheating by, among other things, funneling Hillary debate questions ahead of time.
The really interesting question is why Brazile is now throwing Hillary under the bus, and how she expects to get away with it without being Vince Fostered in the dark of night.
Our guess - and fervent hope - is that Brazile knows that real, indictable dirt on Hillary is about to come out, and she's written this book to try to keep from being dragged under by Clinton's Titanic-sized undertow.
Just one more rat deserting a sinking ship.
NEW YORK TERROR
We had a disconcerting revelation today while reflecting on Tuesday's horrendous terror attack in New York.
We're always told that in the face of such attacks, we need to stick to our usual routines, hold our heads up, and be unafraid.
But we're not unafraid. Mind you, we've got no particular fear of wild-eyed goat-screwing pube-faced radical Islamic terrorists. But we are afraid - for our very country and way of life - when we hear the mainstream media's reactions to a crude act of terror.
On one alleged news network, a talking head opined that the truck-driving, "Allahu Akbar" shouting killer "could have just as easily been a Catholic two weeks ago" before becoming radicalized. Another outlet immediately started worrying for the umpteenth time about a possible (yet never actually occurring) backlash against Muslim Americans. And despite the murderer's sworn allegiance to ISIS, multiple outlets were still declaring this to be a "lone wolf" attack which certainly shouldn't be connected to any particular religion or ideology.
So here's a thought: why don't most of us go on doing what we've always done without fear, while the mainstream media completely changes what they've always done in order to make future such attacks less likely.
